>> ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy is getting ready to head to washington as congress remains deadlocked on sending more military aid to his country. >> se said to me, the entire house house and speaker mike johnson. they have been repeatedly sounding the alarm for weeks, running dry and the dire consequences of that happening. saying, quote, in the midst of a border crisis, zelenskyy will come to washington, and care more about his border than our own. arlette sainz joins us now. arl arlette, does the white house sound like this visit and its profile could change the dynamics of the negotiations? >> well, we certainly hope so, phil, and volodymyr zelenskyy is often viewed as the best advocate for his own country's needs, and the white house is hoping by having zelenskyy here in washington, that that will apply some additional pressure on lawmakers up on capitol hill. now zelenskyy will meet here at the white house with president biden, but he also will have a series of meetings up on capitol hill tomorrow. that includes a meeting with all senators, and then he will have a one-on-one meeting with the house speaker, mike johnson. mike johnson has argued that in order for this aid to be passed, the administration needs to be explained more about the path forward in ukraine as well as including any -- or including border policy changes to any additional funding that has passed. those border policy changes have really been at the sticking point of these talks over ukraine, aid, and aid for israel, and that is an argument that was echoed by gop senators over the weekend. >> it started with the biden administration saying we need to do a national security package that has israel, ukraine, taiwan, and the border. right now, the push and pull is really a political push and pull more than anything else. >> how long does this go until the president and articulate the answer to those questions? i don't know why we would write another blank check. >> now senators have been working for weeks trying to come up with some type of agreement when it comes to potential border policy changes. president biden himself has said that he is open to making some changes on that front. senator chris murphy had also suggested that the white house could become more engaged in those conversations in the coming week, but the white house has really been trying to make clear to lawmakers that time is running out to pass this additional aid, and they are hoping that having zelenskyy here in washington will help move those conversations along. >> we will see if it does. what about this new polling this morning from key battleground states from michigan and georgia that do not look good for president biden? i wonder if the white house is responding at all this morning? >> reporter: well, the common refrain you hear from the white house and the campaign about these polls is they're not focused about these polls one year out. they're not necessarily predictive of the final outcome, and there's a belief in the campaign that the choice in the 2024 election will come into sharper focus once biden starts making those contrasts a bit more, and as the republican field becomes a little bit more set, but these numbers in both georgia and michigan that show president biden trailing gop candidates certainly present some of the challenges that biden will face heading into that 2024 election at a time when americans' views on the economy still remain pessimistic. so there still is a lot of work for the biden campaign and the administration to do as they're trying to move the needle with voters with less than a year go. >> arlette at the white house. thanks very much. joining us now, cnn senior global affairs columnist, bianna g golodrigo. >> giving the members of congress and the ukrainian flag from the battlefield and vice versa, a surprise visit to the white house, and how did we get from there to here? >> i was just going to bring up that speech last year not only because i was home watching it with covid and wished that i could have been working here as we were covering it, but also because you think about what's happened in that period of time since where you have zelenskyy coming back, not making a joint speech between the joint session of congress again, but actually having to -- i mean, let's for a lack of a better word just say, beg the president, beg for additional atdid now, and you s what's happened in that country since it hasn't helped, since the counteroffensive hasn't gone according to plan, and they're fighting over -- whether you call it a stalemate at this point or not now, but it's trouble among ukraines and zelenskyy himself, his popularity has gone down. you not only have republicans questioning whether there can be additional aid and funding going to ukraine. even democrats think the u.s. is spending too much money on ukraine. >> yes. i was going to bring that up. the majority of americans think it's too much or not enough. that's really interesting. you have a new column that says you are ashamed to be an american on this point. why do you think that the majority of the public is moving in the direction that bianna mentioned more than the other way? >> well, clearly we live in a short attention span society, and after a couple of years, people are tired of the war. they would like to move on. ukrainians would like to move on too, but they can't move on because they had this genocidal invader occupying about 20% of their country and trying to take the rest of it, so they have no choice but to keep fighting, and i think -- to me, i'm ashamed that there are so many americans who want to betray our ukrainian allies, just as there are so many in 1941 who were battling the gnazis. we have to stay the course, and it's true the ukrainian offensive to not generate as had been hoped this summer, and the war to some extent is stalemate, but it's not destined to stay a stalemate. if they don't provide, the russians can break through, and right now, they can kill people in ukraine's cities unless we keep supplying the air defense weapons that ukraine needs to keep itself safe. >> it's not just the united states. europe and our allies are watching what happens here closely too because they're having the same issues with stockpiles being depleted in terms of weapons, weapon production and procurement as we know takes a long time. even if we give them the funding now, it will be months before any weapons do land in ukrainian hands, and so if you are a european ally and dealing with similar issues at home, by the way with even worsening economies than the u.s. economy because that does seem to be the number one concern among voters saying we're spending too much money in spending ukraine. not because they don't think ukraine is on the right side of history here, but they're concerned about the economy here at home. >> and that's why blinken to the director, the rationale changed. their line now is 90% of the money you spend on new things for ukraine goes to the u.s. and american jobs. it's an interesting shift. >> it's also -- keep in mind. yes, it's a lot of money in absolute terms, but not in the context of a $6 trillion federal budget. we're talking about the current request for ukraine is one-tenth of 1% of federal spending and it's the possible investment we could make because we're investing in our own security because they're fighting the russians for us and we're not risking a single american soldier on the battlefield, and the ukrainians are destroying and decimating the russian military so it can't threaten its neighbors, us, and it's a pittance in the pool of spending. >> bianna, i want to ask you. secretary blinken talked about what's happening in israel right now, u.s. support for israel and concerns in israel, but i want to play some sound related to something you have been covering a lot over the course of the last couple of weeks. listen. >> atrocities that we saw on october 7th are almost beyond human description or beyond our capacity to digest, and we've talked about them before, but the sexual violence that we saw on october 7th is beyond anything that i've seen either. >> what happens now? right? if you and jake and a lot of our colleagues that have drawn a lot of attention to this -- it feels like everybody's talking about it, who should have been talking about it from the very beginning, and that's not the state department. where does it go? you acknowledge the reality. are there investigations? are there prosecutions? how does this work? >> the investigations in israel do continue. they have been hoping to bring in more international bodies to help further these investigations and condemn the atrocities committed by hamas. it was a good first step nearly two months later to have u.n. women come out and condemn it and have antonio gutieerres condemn it, but the focus was on the ceasefire, but the body itself has not in its language condemned hamas yet which is one of the reasons why the united states has vetoed it. >> i'm glad you said that. it's a big deal. >> how can you call an independent body, anybody who views the united nations -- and i'm sorry i have to say this. that's why jake asked the question to blinken. there may be some concerns about anti-semtism here because the fact that you have a body like the united nations security council, you know, very rich that russia sits on this as well, that can't condemn hamas for the atrocities speaks volumes. >> thank you both. appreciate it. a surprise move from donald trump dtdsing not to testify today in his civil trial. more on his decision ahead. also, a pregnant woman in texas. her health is on the line, and she is waiting to find out if she will be allowed to have an abortion that her doctor deems is necessary for her own health. her attorney's in studio with us next. this morning, a dallas woman is seeking an abortion and is, quote, on pins and needles according to her attorney as she waits for a court decision on her unprecedented challenge to one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the united states. the texas supreme court is blocking at least for now, kate cox's court-approved exception for the state's abortion ban. it says the case will remain pending before them. they did not give a timeline before they give a decision, and time is not on her side. she's now 21 weeks pregnant, but her doctor says her baby is suffering from a genetics condition which is almost always fatal and her health is at risk if she carries to term. a lower judge court ruled that indeed cox could move forward with terminating her pregnancy. in just a matter of days, cox has gone from being approved to now in limbo waiting for a court do decide. joining us now in studio is her attorney and for her doctor, molly dwayne, senior staff attorney at reproductive rights. we just talked to you on friday. thank you for being with us. you have said over the weekend with no explanation that they issued this, and your fear of what is justice delayed will be justice denied. what do you mean? >> while a week may be a short amount of time for a court, it is a very long amount of time for a real patient in a medical crisis. i mean, think about how you would feel. you get an order saying, yes. my abortion can go forward doctor can give me the life-saving care, an abortion, which is what i need right now, and then all of a sudden, a court steps in and says, on a friday night, we need more time to think about it. now it's been all weekend that kate has been waiting. she and i have been in constant contact. she spent most of the weekend in bed. i mean, think about how you would feel in that situation. this is why it is completely untenable for patients to have to come to court and ask for court authorization for life-saving medical care. it's simply outrageous and people should be outraged but what is happening in texas right now. >> kate already has children and wants to be able to have more. she's concerned if she carries this baby to term, she'll be procp procluded from having more. you're talking about a doctor making this decision versus a judge, but it was filed to the texas supreme court to get this decision. here's how the writ begins. quote, the judiciary is called upon to serve in black robes, not white coats, and it must be vigilant to stay in its lane and remember its role. he's saying the court shouldn't decide. the doctor should decide, but indeed he's asking a court to decide. >> what he's saying is that physicians in texas shouldn't be practicing medicine. kim paxton is practicing medicine because that's what he wants. he wants to review her medical records, and i think what this goes to show, when people tout the medical exceptions to abortion bans as meaning that the abortion bans are okay, and that people who really need care are still getting it, that's a lie. it's just not true. >> let's take this bigger picture than kate. she represents what could be many women. you have a case before the high court in texas trying to get clarity on what those exceptions mean, representing 20 different women. there is something in this filing that ken paxton brought to the texas supreme court, and i want to understand it. he wrote, texas' medical expert stated that ms. cox did not immediate the medical requirements and the exception. did that -- who is that medical expert? did they examine kate cox as her doctor did? >> no. this is the same medical expert that testified in another case and said, actually, this should be left to the judgment of patients and physicians, and that what has been happening while these abortion bans have been in place is creating substandard care because physicians are terrified. that's her language. terrified. she said, it's the blind leading the blind because when you talk about life in prison and loss of your medical license, physicians can't take a chance when ken paxton is going to threaten them. >> speak to that. his original letter to the hospital after kate was briefly allowed to go get this abortion stated that to the hospitals, this order from the court will not insulate you or anyone else from civil or criminal liability including feloniedy first degre. >> he's saying you'll get prison. i want people to understand what that letter means. that is as far as i can tell, directly flouting a court order and saying, i, ken paxton, get to decide, and we're talking first degree. he wants to put physicians in prison for their entire lives. >> what legal remedy do you have? you're betting on the texas supreme court. that's all you got, right? >> well, mine, there are a lot of levers in this country to pull, and i'm a lawyer. i operate in the courts. the texas supreme court is the supreme law of the land when it cops comes to the law of texas and we're hopeful that the supreme court will recognize this as the unprecedented matter that it is, but for kate, i'm still just really focused on getting her the health care that she needs. >> and if they don't -- if the court does not agree with you and kate, what does this mean for women across the state of texas? is this the new normal? >> i wouldn't call it the new normal because what kate has done here, putting herself out there, letting everyone, including the attorney general and physicians who haven't even examined her, opine on her medical situation, that is a stunning and brave thing to do, and 99% of women will be unable to do that. i think what kate's case shows is that abortion is medical care. it is urgent, essential health care, and it should be left to physicians in conjunction with their patients and their families to decide what's right for every patient. would you want ken paxton in the medical room with you? i don't think so. >> molly duane, thank you. please keep us posted. >> appreciate your time. >> phil? new polling just out of iowa this morning highlighting the grip donald trump has on the republican party. we're going to break down the new numbers next. also, pressure growing on harvard's president to resign after her testimony on anti-semitism on capitol hill, but now hundreds of harvard faculty members defending her this morning. well, new this morning, new cnn polling from two crucial battleground states, shows president biden trailing president trump in georgia. a state biden carried by a narrow margin in 2020. registered voters say they prefer trump over biden by five points and in michigan, which went for 2016 and biden in 2020, our poll shows trump ten points up. note that a full 10% of those polls said they wouldn't support either candidate. there's a new poll on the gop race in iowa. donald trump maintains a sizable lead, 51%. ron desantis in second place with 19% ahead of nikki haley who's in third with 16%. now keep in mind, that poll coming with just five weeks until the iowa caucuses. the florida governor has been going on the attack recently. taking some swipes at trump even while campaigning over the weekend. >> he's running, if you listen to the stuff he's saying, about personal retribution and about himself and his own issues. i'm not running about my issues. i'm running about your issues. i'm running about your family. that's going to be the focus for me. >> joining us now, from t the "daily register," what stood out to you about where things stand in the race here? >> yeah. as we have seen some candidates drop out of the race, we've seen trump's lead widen over his opponents. what we see now is for the first time he has a majority support among caucus-goers in iowa. before he was in the 40s and now he's above 50%. that's significant. we also see the battle for second place continuing with ron desantis at 19 like you said, and nikki haley at 16. this doesn't represent a lot of movement for either of them, and it comes after desantis has big endorsements from kim reynolds and a lot of other leading state figures. they still have some room to grow here. they need to grow to catch trump. traditionally iowa caucus-goers decide late. in this poll, we see that 70% of trump supporters already have their minds made up whereas for desantis, it's about 30% and a little more than that for nicky hay lay. 2 -- nikki haley. the trump supporters seem to be locked in, and one other step among caucus goers, trump has a 5-1 lead over desantis, 63% support among first-time cause-goers. >> how do you explain that, steven? >> yeah. so i mean, part of whack make the caucuses unpredictable is candidates who are able to bring in a large number of first-time caucus-goers, and you think of barack obama and bernie sanders who rode a wave of momentum from people who aren't gone through the process before. they hadn't traditionally participated. in this case, like i said, trump has a commanding lead among those people who haven't gone out of their way to go to a caucus on a monday night before. so, you know, if the other candidates' theory of the race is they're going to bring in new people and expand the electorate, to cut into the base that trump has, what we're seeing is the opposite. >> five weeks out from the caucuses, every campaign is telling you how amazing their operation is. how they've got the secret sauce behind the scenes to change dynamics of what you are seeing in the polls, but when you look underneath the hood here, who's got the best operation? is there one that stands out to you right now? >> they've all got their strengths, right? desantis has had a lot of people in iowa with never back down. he's got a lot of people knocking doors. they've collected a lot of data from iowans and made relationships. nikki haley got an endorsement from americans for prosperity action. they have dozens of door-knockers and about ten paid staffers across the state who are doing work on her behalf, but i talked to our republican operative who said trump doesn't get enough credit for his gr